Wheelchair-bound Livermore pleaded guilty to possessing indecent images of children and breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. That order, which had banned him from downloading child sex abuse images, was passed on June 2, 2010.

Prosecutor Neil King said when officers analysed the images 11 were in Category A, the most serious, 11 were at B and 1,579 were at C, the least serious level.

Livermore claimed he was only interested in the images for artistic reasons. He had used search terms such as: "Little Girls".

Andrew Campbell, defending, said the "penny has dropped" with Livermore. He said he had previously been deluding himself when he blamed Reg Brown. He described Livermore as an "isolated man".

Judge John Plumstead told him: "You have played a part in the degradation of children. If people like you did not download these images, they would not be taken and uploaded."

The judge said he would send him immediately to prison were it not for his illness. He passed a 12 month sentence suspended for two years with a Sexual Offences Prevention Order that means that any browsing history on his computer is recorded and accessible.

Why aren't Google and other search engines able to detect these images and locate the source? Surely it is possible, paedophiles seem to have no difficulty doing it and connecting to each other.
As for the leniency from the Judge shame on him/her the man is a danger to our children. Why should they still be at risk just because he is ill,the compassion should be with the innocent not the criminal.

Why aren't Google and other search engines able to detect these images and locate the source? Surely it is possible, paedophiles seem to have no difficulty doing it and connecting to each other.
As for the leniency from the Judge shame on him/her the man is a danger to our children. Why should they still be at risk just because he is ill,the compassion should be with the innocent not the criminal.nettym

So if his illness is what prevented the judge from sending him to jail he might has well have let him off completely because this is sending out the message that if you have a medical condition you can do what you like you wont get put behind bars.

If this sick man does this again it'll be another suspended sentence, and another, and another. At what point does the harm he is helping to inflict on others overide any consideration to his illness?

So if his illness is what prevented the judge from sending him to jail he might has well have let him off completely because this is sending out the message that if you have a medical condition you can do what you like you wont get put behind bars.
If this sick man does this again it'll be another suspended sentence, and another, and another. At what point does the harm he is helping to inflict on others overide any consideration to his illness?garston tony

"breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. That order, which had banned him from downloading child sex abuse images, was passed on June 2, 2010."

What idiocy is this? An order that he doesn't do something that is illegal anyway?
If I commit an armed robbery, will I get an order banning me from doing any more armed robberies? And if I breach that, a suspended sentence? I suppose if I breach it a third time, I might get a dreaded Community Order.

"breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. That order, which had banned him from downloading child sex abuse images, was passed on June 2, 2010."
What idiocy is this? An order that he doesn't do something that is illegal anyway?
If I commit an armed robbery, will I get an order banning me from doing any more armed robberies? And if I breach that, a suspended sentence? I suppose if I breach it a third time, I might get a dreaded Community Order.LSC

Hmm ..sick? Yes this creep certainly is. Ok so he appears to have got away with it...again.why not :
A) confiscate all his computer,tablet and other internet access equipment
B) ban him buying replacements
C) instruct telecoms firms not to instal equipment enabling web access
D) put him under 24 hour curfew
E) publish his photograph ,description of him & his crimes on lampposts

Or is that too sensible and radical?
COYH

Hmm ..sick? Yes this creep certainly is. Ok so he appears to have got away with it...again.why not :
A) confiscate all his computer,tablet and other internet access equipment
B) ban him buying replacements
C) instruct telecoms firms not to instal equipment enabling web access
D) put him under 24 hour curfew
E) publish his photograph ,description of him & his crimes on lampposts
Or is that too sensible and radical?
COYHbishopofwatford

"...Judge John Plumstead told him: "You have played a part in the degradation of children. If people like you did not download these images, they would not be taken and uploaded..."

Then, for the second time in four years, Judge Plumstead lets the dirty old creep off scot-free.

The law and judicial system are a total joke at times. People like sicko child-hater Livermore should pay for what they have done. Instead they are rewarded with a free pass to live in a community with children everywhere.

Illness is NO mitigation. This "man" should be in prison. It's staggering to think the same judge has failed our community twice.

"...Judge John Plumstead told him: "You have played a part in the degradation of children. If people like you did not download these images, they would not be taken and uploaded..."
Then, for the second time in four years, Judge Plumstead lets the dirty old creep off scot-free.
The law and judicial system are a total joke at times. People like sicko child-hater Livermore should pay for what they have done. Instead they are rewarded with a free pass to live in a community with children everywhere.
Illness is NO mitigation. This "man" should be in prison. It's staggering to think the same judge has failed our community twice.stevus

It appears the legal system is going soft on Croxley perverts (it's a shame that appears to be an appropriate term), just like this one from last year - http://www.watfordob
server.co.uk/news/10
689357.Child_porn_ad
dict_avoids_jail_by_
a__whisker_/

It appears the legal system is going soft on Croxley perverts (it's a shame that appears to be an appropriate term), just like this one from last year - http://www.watfordob
server.co.uk/news/10
689357.Child_porn_ad
dict_avoids_jail_by_
a__whisker_/Mad_Hat